Purpose
To estimate the accuracy of predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in patients with locally advanced breast cancer using MR spectroscopy (MRS) measurements made very early in ...treatment.
Materials and Methods
This prospective Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)–compliant protocol was approved by the American College of Radiology and local‐site institutional review boards. One hundred nineteen women with invasive breast cancer of ≥3 cm undergoing NACT were enrolled between September 2007 and April 2010. MRS measurements of the concentration of choline‐containing compounds (tCho) were performed before the first chemotherapy regimen (time point 1, TP1) and 20–96 h after the first cycle of treatment (TP2). The change in tCho was assessed for its ability to predict pathologic complete response (pCR) and radiologic response using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and logistic regression models.
Results
Of the 119 subjects enrolled, only 29 cases (24%) with eight pCRs provided usable data for the primary analysis. Technical challenges in acquiring quantitative MRS data in a multi‐site trial setting limited the capture of usable data. In this limited data set, the decrease in tCho from TP1 to TP2 had poor ability to predict either pCR (AUC = 0.53, 95% confidence interval CI: 0.27–0.79) or radiologic response (AUC = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.27–0.75).
Conclusion
The technical difficulty of acquiring quantitative MRS data in a multi‐site clinical trial setting led to a low yield of analyzable data, which was insufficient to accurately measure the ability of early MRS measurements to predict response to NACT.
Level of Evidence: 1
Technical Efficacy: Stage 2
J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;46:290–302
To determine reasons for nonparticipation in a trial of supplemental screening with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after mammography and ultrasonography (US).
Women(n = 2809) at elevated risk of ...breast cancer were enrolled in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6666 US Screening Protocol at 21 institutions. Fourteen institutions met technical and experience requirements for this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant substudy of supplemental screening with MR imaging. Those women who had completed 0-, 12-, and 24-month screenings with mammography combined with US were considered for a single contrast material-enhanced MR examination within 8 weeks after completing the 24-month mammography-US screening. A total of 1593 women had complete MR substudy registration data: 378 of them were ineligible for the study, and 1215 had analyzable data. Reasons for nonparticipation were determined. Demographic data were compared between study participants and nonparticipants.
Of 1215 women with analyzable data, 703 (57.9%), with a mean age of 54.8 years, were enrolled in the MR substudy and 512 (42.1%) declined participation. Women with a 25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer were more likely to participate (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.10, 2.12). Of 512 nonparticipants, 130 (25.4%) refused owing to claustrophobia; 93 (18.2%), owing to time constraints; 62 (12.1%), owing to financial concerns; 47 (9.2%), because their physician would not provide a referral and/or did not believe MR imaging was indicated; 40 (7.8%), because they were not interested; 39 (7.6%), because they were medically intolerant to MR imaging; 29 (5.7%), because they did not want to undergo intravenous injection; 27 (5.3%), owing to additional biopsy or other procedures that might be required subsequently; 21 (4.1%), owing to MR imaging scheduling constraints; 11 (2.2%), because of the travel required; seven (1.4%), owing to gadolinium-related risks or allergies; and six (1.2%), for unknown reasons.
Of 1215 women with elevated breast cancer risk who could, according to protocol guidelines, undergo breast MR imaging, only 57.9% agreed to participate.
Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy Bluemke, David A; Gatsonis, Constantine A; Chen, Mei Hsiu ...
JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association,
12/2004, Letnik:
292, Številka:
22
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been shown to have high sensitivity for cancer detection and is increasingly used following mammography to evaluate suspicious breast lesions.
To determine ...the accuracy of breast MRI in conjunction with mammography for the detection of breast cancer in patients with suspicious mammographic or clinical findings.
Prospective multicenter investigation of the International Breast MR Consortium conducted at 14 university hospitals in North America and Europe from June 2, 1998, through October 31, 2001, of 821 patients referred for breast biopsy for American College of Radiology category 4 or 5 mammographic assessment or suspicious clinical or ultrasound finding.
MRI examinations performed prior to breast biopsy; MRI results were interpreted at each site, which were blinded to pathological results.
Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of breast MRI.
Among the 821 patients, there were 404 malignant index lesions, of which 63 were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and 341 were invasive carcinoma. Of the 417 nonmalignant index lesions, 366 were benign, 47 showed atypical histology, and 4 were lobular carcinoma in situ. The AUC pooled over all institutions was 0.88 (95% confidence interval CI, 0.86-0.91). MRI correctly detected cancer in 356 of 404 cancer cases (DCIS or invasive cancer), resulting in a sensitivity of 88.1% (95% CI, 84.6%-91.1%), and correctly identified as negative for cancer 281 of 417 cases without cancer, resulting in a specificity of 67.7% (95% CI, 62.7%-71.9%). MRI performance was not significantly affected by mammographic breast density, tumor histology, or menopausal status. The positive predictive values for 356 of 492 patients was 72.4% (95% CI, 68.2%-76.3%) and of mammography for 367 of 695 patients was 52.8% (95% CI, 49.0%-56.6%) (P<.005). Dynamic MRI did not improve the AUC compared with 3-dimensional MRI alone, but the specificity of a washout pattern for 123 of 136 patients without cancer was 90.4% (95% CI, 84%-95%).
Breast MRI has high sensitivity but only moderate specificity independent of breast density, tumor type, and menopausal status. Although the positive predictive value of MRI is greater than mammography, MRI does not obviate the need for subsequent tissue sampling in this setting.
Abstract
Background
There is an increasing interest in non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting and evaluating breast lesions. We present a methodology utilizing lesion ...core and periphery region of interest (ROI) features derived from directional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) data to evaluate performance in discriminating benign from malignant lesions in dense breasts.
Methods
We accrued 55 dense-breast cases with 69 lesions (31 benign; 38 cancer) at a single institution in a prospective study; cases with ROIs exceeding 7.50 cm
2
were excluded, resulting in analysis of 50 cases with 63 lesions (29 benign, 34 cancers). Spin-echo echo-planar imaging DWI was acquired at 1.5 T and 3 T. Data from three diffusion encoding gradient directions were exported and processed independently. Lesion ROIs were hand-drawn on DWI images by two radiologists. A region growing algorithm generated 3D lesion models on augmented apparent-diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps and defined lesion core and lesion periphery sub-ROIs. A lesion-core and a lesion-periphery feature were defined and combined into an overall classifier whose performance was compared to that of mean ADC using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Inter-observer variability in ROI definition was measured using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC).
Results
The region-growing algorithm for 3D lesion model generation improved inter-observer variability over hand drawn ROIs (DSC: 0.66 vs 0.56 (
p
< 0.001) with substantial agreement (DSC > 0.8) in 46% vs 13% of cases, respectively (p < 0.001)). The overall classifier improved discrimination over mean ADC, (ROC- area under the curve (AUC): 0.85 vs 0.75 and 0.83 vs 0.74 respectively for the two readers).
Conclusions
A classifier generated from directional DWI information using lesion core and lesion periphery information separately can improve lesion discrimination in dense breasts over mean ADC and should be considered for inclusion in computer-aided diagnosis algorithms. Our model-based ROIs could facilitate standardization of breast MRI computer-aided diagnostics (CADx).
The objective of our study was to compare the performance of positron emission mammography (PEM) with that of MRI in the evaluation of the contralateral breast of women with newly diagnosed cancer.
...Four hundred seventy-two women with newly diagnosed breast cancer offered breast-conserving surgery from September 2006 through November 2008 consented to participate in a multicenter protocol. Participants underwent contrast-enhanced breast MRI and 18F-FDG PEM in randomized order, and the examinations were interpreted independently. The performance characteristics of the imaging modalities were compared using the McNemar test and generalized estimating equations. A retrospective blinded review of PEM images was performed by four experienced observers to understand the reasons for false-negatives.
Three hundred sixty-seven women (median age, 58 years; age range, 26-93 years) eligible for analysis completed the appropriate follow-up for study inclusion. Fifteen women (4.1%) were found to have contralateral cancer (11 invasive mean tumor size, 12 mm; median, 10 mm; range, 1-22 mm and four ductal carcinoma in situ). Of the 15 cases, both PEM and MRI showed three (20%), only MRI showed 11 (73%), and one (6.7%) was found at prophylactic mastectomy. MRI sensitivity at 14 of 15 (93%; 95% CI, 66-94) was higher than PEM at three of 15 (20%; 95% CI, 5.3-46) (p<0.001). On PEM, three additional cancers were seen prospectively but were considered probably benign and two other cancers were visible in retrospect at the site. Of 352 contralateral breasts without cancer, findings were negative or benign on PEM for 335 (95.2%; 95% CI, 92.2-97.0), which is more than MRI at 315 (89.5%; 95% CI, 85.7-92.4; p=0.002). The positive predictive value (PPV) of PEM-prompted biopsies (3/14 21%) was not significantly different from the PPV of MRI (15/54 28%, p=0.58). On blinded retrospective PEM review of the 15 contralateral cancers, PEM findings for 11 (73%) were considered suspicious.
Contralateral cancer was found in 15 of 367 women (4.1%), with MRI showing 14 (93%). Eleven contralateral cancers (73%) were visible on PEM, but only three (20%) were recognized prospectively as suspicious. Lesions that are visible on PEM should be viewed as suspicious unless known to be benign by prior breast imaging or biopsy.
As a potential biomarker for women's cardiovascular and chronic kidney diseases, breast arterial calcification (BAC) in mammography has become an emerging research topic in recent years. To provide ...more objective measurement for vascular structures with calcium depositions in mammography, a new computerized method is introduced in this paper to delineate the calcified vessels. Specifically, we leverage two underlying cues, namely calcification and vesselness, into a multiple seeded tracking with uncertainty scheme. This new vessel-tracking scheme generates plenty of sampling paths to describe the complicated topology of the vascular structures with calcium depositions. A compiling and linking process is further carried out to organize the sampling paths together to be the vessel segments that likely belong to the same vessel tract. The proposed method has been evaluated on 63 mammograms, by comparison with manual delineations from two experts using various assessment metrics. The experiment results confirm the efficacy and stability of the proposed method, and also indicate that the proposed method can be potentially used as a convenient BAC measurement tool in replacement of the trivial and tedious manual delineation tasks.
Cancer detection rate (CDR), an important metric in the mammography screening audit, is designed to ensure adequate sensitivity. Most practices use biopsy results as the reference standard; however, ...commonly ascertainment of biopsy results is incomplete. We used simulation to determine the relationship between the cancer ascertainment rate of biopsy (AR-biopsy), CDR estimation, and associated error rates in classifying whether practices and radiologists meet the established ACR benchmark of 2.5 per 1,000.
We simulated screening mammography volume, number of cancers detected, and CDR, using negative binomial and beta-binomial distributions, respectively. Simulations were performed at both the practice and radiologist level. Average CDR was based on linearly rescaling a published CDR by the AR-biopsy. CDR distributions were simulated for AR-biopsy between 5% and 100% in steps of five percentage points and were summarized with boxplots and smoothed histograms over the range of AR-biopsy, to quantify the proportion of practices and radiologists meeting the ACR benchmark at each level of AR-biopsy.
Decreasing AR-biopsy led to an increasing probability of categorizing CDR performance as being below the ACR benchmark. Our simulation predicts that at the practice level, an AR-biopsy of 65% categorizes 17.6% below the benchmark (compared to 1.6% at an AR-biopsy of 100%), and at the radiologist level, an AR-biopsy of 65% categorizes 34.7% as being below the benchmark (compared to 11.6% at an AR-biopsy of 100%).
Our simulation demonstrates that decreasing the AR-biopsy (in currently clinically relevant ranges) has the potential to artifactually lower the assessed CDR on both the practice and radiologist levels and may, in turn, increase the chance of erroneous categorization of underperformance per the ACR benchmark.
Measuring the cost of performing breast imaging is difficult in healthcare systems. The purpose of our study was to evaluate this cost using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) and to evaluate ...cost drivers for different exams.
An IRB-approved, single-center prospective study was performed on 80 female patients presenting for breast screening, diagnostic or biopsy exams from July 2020 to April 2021. Using TDABC, data were collected for each exam type. Included were full-field digital mammography (FFDM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), US and MRI exams, and stereotactic, US-guided and MRI-guided biopsies. For each exam type, mean cost and relative contributions of equipment, personnel and supplies were calculated.
Screening MRI, CEM, US, DBT, and FFDM costs were $249, $120, $83, $28, and $30. Personnel was the major contributor to cost (60.0%-87.0%) for all screening exams except MRI where equipment was the major contributor (62.2%). Diagnostic MRI, CEM, US, and FFDM costs were $241, $123, $70, and $43. Personnel was the major contributor to cost (60.5%-88.6%) for all diagnostic exams except MRI where equipment was the major contributor (61.8%). Costs of MRI-guided, stereotactic and US-guided biopsy were $1611, $826, and $356. Supplies contributed 40.5%-49.8% and personnel contributed 30.7%-55.6% to the total cost of biopsies.
TDABC provides assessment of actual costs of performing breast imaging. Costs and contributors varied across screening, diagnostic and biopsy exams and modalities. Practices may consider this methodology in understanding costs and making changes directed at cost savings.
PDF
